ed; and perhaps proceed to deny that very perfection, the operation of which they are forced to acknowledge in almoft every other of the works of God.

It may, therefore, tend to throw light on this important fubject, to confider the difplay which is made of the fovereignty of God in other works, befides that of falvation, and in a variety of circumftances, evidently recorded in Scripture in fubferviency to this.

A particular illuftration of this perfection is the more neceffary, becaufe, unless we have juft ideas of it, we cannot think juftly with refpect to any other perfection of God. How eager have earthly princes been to render themselves abfolute ! The richness of their revenues, the love of their fubjects, or the extent of their conquefts, have often been viewed as no counterbalance to the want of unlimited authority. Ahab was miferable, because he met with refiftance from the poffeffor of one poor vineyard: and Jezebel, his wife, feemed to think, that his royalty did not deferve the name, if he could not gratify himself in this inftance. "Doft thou now," fhe fays, "govern the kingdom "of Ifrael ?" Has not many a prince cheerfully hazarded his crown for the mere poffibility of enjoying abfolute fway? This is the groffeft arrogance in man, who is a worm. But fovereign authority is effential to the majesty of God. His will is not influenced by any caufe without himfelf. But we are by no means to form our judgment

N 3

of

a 1 Kings xxi, 7.

of divine fovereignty, by comparing it with the arbitrary will of a finful creature. For God never exercises his fovereignty without a proper end. He is entirely fovereign in the display of his perfections, and in the manner and degree in which he difplays them. But his fovereignty is conftantly exercifed according to the rule of his perfections. It is always in entire confistency with his holiness and juftice, wifdom and goodness. While fovereignty is ftill regulated by these perfections, it lends them a peculiar luftre. It is the royal fplendour of all the other attributes of God. Suppofe him to be poffeffed of all poffible perfections, and yet to act neceffarily in the display of thefe; it would greatly derogate from their glory. We could not, indeed, acknowledge him as the Supreme Being. By this, more than by any of his moral perfections, he is diftinguished from every creature, even the moft exalted. To" do "his pleasure," is the highest honour to which any creature is advanced b. But the Almighty difplays his self-existence and independence, by still doing what pleases himself. When, therefore, the Church teftifies her affurance, " that the LORD is great, "and that our LORD is above all gods;" this is the evidence that the immediately produces, He "hath done whatfoever he pleafed ."

1. The work of Creation, in various refpects, unfolds this attribute. He, who is Being itself, was under no neceffity of nature to communicate being to any other. He is equally independent

b Pfal. ciii. 21.

c Pfal. cxxxv. 5, 6.

of

of all creatures for his bleffednefs, as for his being. The poffeffion of thousands of worlds cannot in the leaft enrich him. The praifes of myriads of men or angels can make no addition to his felicity. Why, then, did he create the univerfe? Juft because he pleafed. The fovereignty of his pleafure, as difplayed in the work of creation, is infeparably connected with the work itself, as an equally cogent reafon for the higheft praife. "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour, and power for thou haft created all

66

46

things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were "created d." He did not create, without an end worthy of himself. He proposed the manifeftation of his infinite wifdom, power and goodness. On the fuppofition of his engaging in this work, he could have no other end in view. But ftill his creating, with this very defign, was the refult of a fovereign act of his will. For he did not ftand in need of any external manifeftation of his perfections; his bleffednefs confifting in the eternal contemplation of thefe, in his own infinite mind.

Is it inquired, why God did not begin to create, till within lefs than fix thousand years back from the present time, when it was in his power to have given a far earlier difplay of his perfections? Or why, when he had exifted from eternity alone, he in time gave being to creatures formed for fellowship with him? It may indeed be said, that no finite nature can exift from eternity; and that, although the most remote period, which the mind

N 4

of

d Rev. iv. 11.

of man can conceive, had been fixed on by God as the date of creation, it would not have approached nearer to eternity than did the actual era of creation. But ftill the principal folution is, that this was the divine pleasure.

Is it afked, Why did he extend or confine his work to fix days? Why hath he formed fuch a certain number of creatures, and neither more nor fewer? Why hath he given being to many, for which we can difcern no ufe? to many, the exiftence of which has moft probably never been learned, that are hid in the abyffes of the sea, and therefore cannot be the means of difplaying his perfections? To thefe queftions, and to others innumerable which might be proposed, we muft still give the fame anfwer, "The Lord hath done "whatsoever he pleafed,-in the feas, and in all deep places."

66

Man and beaft, as to the bodily part, acknowledge the fame humble origin. "God faid, Let "the earth bring forth the living creature after "his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of "the earth after his kind.-And the Lord God "formed man of the duft of the ground." That fame duft of which God formed man, and which he animated with a rational and immortal fpirit, conformed to his own image, might, with equal propriety, had he so pleased, gone to the formation of the vileft reptile that crawls on the earth; and the duft of which that reptile is compofed, might have conftituted the corporeal part of man.

But

e Gen. i, 24.; ii. 7.

But in this respect the Almighty Potter hath ma nifefted his "power over the clay, of the fame

66

lamp to make one veffel unto honour, and an66 other unto difhonour f" And fhall we dare to aflign limits to his fovereignty? Shall we fay to this glorious agent, "Hitherto fhalt thou come, "and no further?" Shall we admit his fovereignty in the old creation, and refufe it in the new? Shall we acknowledge his right to do with that, which was negatively innocent, as he pleased; and deny him the fame right as to that which had actually offended him? When the whole lump of our nature is corrupted by fin, fhall we prefume to fay to him; "Thou mayeft not do according to thy pleafure; but must be determined by the will "of the clay?" Shall we not rather adopt the acknowledgment of the Church? "Now, O LORD, "thou art our father: we are the clay, and thou

.

66

66

our Potter, and we all are the work of thy "hands." If we refufe this fubmiffion, we may be affured that he fhall"dafh us in pieces as a 'potter's veffel." For "wo unto him that ftri"veth with his Maker: let the potsherd strive with "the pot herds of the earth: fhall the clay fay to "him that fashioneth it, What makeft thou? or "thy work, He hath no hands? Wo unto him that "faith unto his father, What begetteft thou? or "to the woman, What haft thou brought forth h?” Would fuch queftions, if addreffed to our earthly parents, argue the most daring impiety? What terms shall we find for expreffing their wicked

nefs,

f Rom. ix. 21.

g Ifa. Ixiv. 8.

h Chap. xlv.

9.